APPENDIX C1

IINDEX TO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
 C1-1 

INDEX TO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS

STUDY PROCESS ....................................................................................... C2-1 

Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................ C2-1 

Proposed Train Service / Operations/ Schedule ............................................................................ C2-7

Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................ C2-14 

Other .................................................................................................................................................... C2-18 

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................... C2-19 

Corridor Options Not Evaluated in the Draft EIS ......................................................................... C2-19

Ashland Area Alternatives ............................................................................................................... C2-22 

Richmond Area Alternatives ............................................................................................................ C2-24 

Station Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. C2-26 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................... C2-31 

General................................................................................................................................................. C2-31 

Traffic / Transportation .................................................................................................................... C2-32 

Right-of-way / Displacements / Property Value ......................................................................... C2-36 

Land Use .............................................................................................................................................. C2-40 

Community Facilities / Title VI / Environmental Justice............................................................ C2-41 

Farmland ............................................................................................................................................. C2-44 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ...................................................................................................... C2-45 

Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................. C2-47 

Natural and Water Resources .......................................................................................................... C2-53 

Noise and Vibration ........................................................................................................................... C2-57 

Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................... C2-62 

Visual / Aesthetic .............................................................................................................................. C2-63 

Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................................................... C2-65 

Indirect and Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................... C2-65 

Safety .................................................................................................................................................... C2-66 

Other .................................................................................................................................................... C2-67 

FUNDING, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPLEMENTATION ........................ C2-68 

Appendix C1 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

C1-2 

STUDY PROCESS 

PURPOSE AND NEED

1. How is the purpose of this Project different than the previous 2002 Tier I document? ...... C2-1 

2. Why is the Project adding more trains? Existing Amtrak trains do not appear to be full, and 

the corridor does not appear to be a major commuter route. ............................................... C2-2 

3. The 2002 Tier I EIS stated that this Project should minimize impacts by using existing rail 

corridors. Therefore, the bypass options under consideration as part of this Project do not 

conform to the Tier I recommendation. ...................................................................................... C2-3 

4. The Project made a recommendation based on the assumption that Long Bridge and Union 

Station capacity improvements will be complete, when the timeline of neither is known. 

 .......................................................................................................................................................... C2-3 

5. Concerns over area-specific capacity needs ............................................................................... C2-4

a. Why is more rail capacity needed in Area 5 (Ashland) but not Area 2 (Northern Virginia)? 

b. Additional rail capacity through Area 5 (Ashland) is not needed and not appropriate. 

c. In all Build Alternatives, Ashland will become a choke point for rail traffic for the entire 

corridor and Project capacity goals will not be met. 

6. CSXT does not support Build Alternative 5A (commonly known as the “3-2-3” option) due to 

capacity constraints. Why is it considered? Isn’t their support required to meet the Purpose 

and Need of the Project? ............................................................................................................... C2-4 

7. The Purpose and Need is based on an analysis of the “current” Need for the Project. However, 

the Draft EIS stated that the Project would be constructed between 15 and 25 years from now 

and the projections of the demand for enhanced passenger rail and freight service are 

presented for between 2025 and 2045—neither of which are “current.” ............................... C2-5 

8. The DC2RVA proposed solutions do not demonstrate that the rail options will truly support 

the service growth and results required to meet the Project Purpose and Need. ................ C2-6 

a. Why is a proposed third track needed? 

b. Are even more tracks needed? 

c. Would it be worth it from a cost-benefit perspective to add more lines as part of this 

Project, to plan for the future? 

9. There is no point to this Project without a national plan for better passenger rail. ............. C2-6 

10. High speed rail won’t meaningfully reduce vehicle traffic, which is stated as an element of 

the Purpose and Need. The touted reduction in I-95 congestion by adding a high speed rail in 

the Project documentation is not true. ........................................................................................ C2-7

PROPOSED TRAIN SERVICE / OPERATIONS / SCHEDULE

1. The lack of specific travel time saved associated with each Build Alternative in the Draft EIS 

suggests the Project will provide negligible benefits for unacceptable costs. ...................... C2-7 
 INDEX TO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS 

 C1-3 

2. Amtrak service is not a reliable transportation choice. Amtrak doesn’t need to be faster, just 

more reliable. What is this Project doing to improve the frequent delays and/or cancellations 

that currently occur on Amtrak? ................................................................................................. C2-7 

3. The passenger trains proposed by the Project should go faster. This is not true high speed rail 

that other countries have. ............................................................................................................. C2-8 

4. Concerns about rail technology assumed and/or evaluated in the Draft EIS ..................... C2-9 

a. The Project does not use the most up-to-date technology, such as hyperloop. 

b. This type of rail is an antiquated system and is not the future of transportation. 

c. No consideration is given to the fact that rail technology is changing (as reported in 

Draft EIS Appendix I); this assumption should be added to the report and then 

defended. The contents of Draft EIS Appendix J lists five types of transportation, but 

fails to identify new or emerging technologies. 

5. Concerns about operations of new service proposed by the Project ................................... C2-10 

a. When will the proposed trains run? 

b. Why is there no late train? 

c. Are trips seven days a week? 

d. Are trips only for commuters? 

e. Monday through Friday service is insufficient, and weekends are needed too. 

6. Concerns about freight service .................................................................................................. C2-10 

a. Project forecasts of future freight should be viewed with skepticism. 

b. The Project fails to anticipate major shifts in distribution patterns for freight that will be 

implemented over the next 20 to 40 years. 

c. The growth in the freight capacity is an assumption that may not hold up. Data 

published by the Association of American Railroads shows that the number of carloads 

in the year 2017 to date is below the number for the years 2015 and 2016. 

d. Higher speeds are needed by freight trains. 

e. Amtrak may use the rail corridor, but over 90% of rail traffic will be CSXT freight trains. 

7. Concerns about Virginia Railway Express (VRE) service ...................................................... C2-12 

a. Are VRE changes part of the Project? 

b. Can night and/or weekend trains to VRE be added as part of this Project? 

c. A better alternative would be to expand commuter service between Fredericksburg and 

Richmond by the VRE or use Mobile Diesel Units to provide service connecting with VRE. 

8. Reliable travel times and schedules are an unachievable goal even if all of the 

recommendations of the Draft EIS were adopted because many of the trains originate outside 

of the corridor. The Draft EIS fails to acknowledge barriers to faster or more reliable travel 

times that are outside of the area of proposed DC2RVA capacity improvements, such as at 

Long Bridge across the Potomac River or at Washington’s Union Station. The improvements 

will not make corridor trains a competitive alternative to automobiles and are not worth the 

costs to affected stakeholders. ................................................................................................... C2-13 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

C1-4 

9. Concerns about the design of track crossovers ....................................................................... C2-14 

a. Did the Project consider upgrading all rail line crossovers along the corridor to be at least 

45 mph? 

b. The current crossovers at Doswell and Milford are only 30 mph and the resulting 

approaching signals slow trains down farther out than is necessary, both of which 

results in operations delays in the corridor. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

1. How are our voices being heard? .............................................................................................. C2-14

a. Are email and written comments being processed the same way?

b. Mass comments dilute the messages of local residents.

c. The comment-response is an unethical process — “form” comments sent through autogenerated websites should be eliminated/should not be “counted” as equivalent to 

citizen comments.

d. Will all repeat comments by a single person be counted as individual comments in the 

record?

e. What is considered more helpful by the DRPT—the total number of comments for or 

against an option or the quality of the comments?

2. Concerns about public outreach and involvement in Area 5 (Ashland) ............................. C2-15 

a. Within Ashland, the communication and transparency with the public was lacking. 

b. Homeowners along the proposed bypass should have been included/notified earlier. 

c. Ashland is getting a disproportionate amount of time/effort. It is one small town in a 

123-mile corridor that will benefit from this Project. 

d. Why did Ashland have to do something other communities have not completed (i.e., the 

CAC, subsequent to publication of the Draft EIS)? 

3. What was the outcome of the Ashland CAC after the publication of the Draft EIS? ...... C2-16 

a. How does it affect analyses that occurred within the Draft EIS or in the Final EIS? 

b. There needs to be a formal comment period on any recommendations in Area 5 prior to 

the next step in the process. 

4. DRPT has ignored public input for not expanding the CSXT rails. ..................................... C2-17 

OTHER

1. Will this process happen again in 20 years because of infrastructure upgrade issues? .... C2-18 

2. Opposition to CSXT’s level of involvement in the Project..................................................... C2-18 

a. CSXT is not funding its fair share of this Project. 

b. CSXT attempt to “control” the decision of Ashland based on their own in-house study of 

Project impact on CSXT. 
 INDEX TO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS 

 C1-5 

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

CORRIDOR OPTIONS NOT EVALUATED IN THE DRAFT EIS 

1. Did the Project consider improvements outside of the existing rail corridor to improve train 

speed (such as construction of straighter lines, separate additional rail lines, flyovers, and/or 

tunnels)? ........................................................................................................................................ C2-19 

2. Did the Project consider moving all freight rail away/separate from passenger rail? ..... C2-20 

a. It is disappointing that no cost/benefit study was made of the alternative of diverting 

substantial numbers of freight trains to the existing rail line in Maryland along the Route 

301 corridor. The expense of building a new Potomac River bridge at Dahlgren and 

building connecting tracks to the RF&P line would be outweighed by both the homeland 

security benefits of bypassing the national capital and the benefits of freeing up the 

Fredericksburg-D.C. line for passenger rail. 

3. Did the Project consider improving highway capacity, instead of and/or in addition to rail 

capacity? ........................................................................................................................................ C2-21 

4. Did the Project consider rail in the I-95 corridor right-of-way and/or within powerline rightof-way? .......................................................................................................................................... C2-21 

5. Did the Project consider having two freight lines and two high speed passenger rail lines? ... 

 ................................................................................................................................................... C2-22 

6. Did the Project consider a three-track option with overtaking lanes (i.e., outer tracks would 

handle freight traffic and inner track would be utilized for passenger rail service only, in both 

directions)? ................................................................................................................................... C2-22 

ASHLAND AREA ALTERNATIVES 

1. How and why was a western bypass alternative in the Ashland area brought forward as an 

alternative in the Draft EIS? ....................................................................................................... C2-22 

2. Support for options not evaluated in the Draft EIS ................................................................ C2-23 

a. One elevated track through downtown Ashland 

b. Tunnel beneath the Town of Ashland 

c. Bypass for vehicular traffic around Ashland 

d. Use of the existing eastern rail alignment (i.e., the Buckingham Branch Line) 

3. Could the proposed alignments through the Ashland Area (Area 5) be modified have less 

impacts overall, especially to homes? ....................................................................................... C2-24 

RICHMOND AREA ALTERNATIVES 

1. How will the Project route trains on the S-Line in Richmond? Isn’t exclusively using the SLine a missed opportunity of capacity for the existing A-Line? ........................................... C2-24 

2. The Richmond Area improvements should be further broken down into smaller projects that 

will allow for the steady increase of passenger rail service at Main Street Station to Hampton 

Roads and the Southeast United States. ................................................................................... C2-25 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

C1-6 

STATION EVALUATION 

1. Concern about which stations are being served by new DC2RVA service throughout the 

corridor, why those locations were chosen, and/or suggestions of additional stations or 

transit services that should be added along the corridor ...................................................... C2-26

2. Concern about which stations are being served within Richmond, their operations, and/or 

their connections to other modes of travel ............................................................................... C2-26

3. Concern regarding proposed level of boarding platforms at stations as part of Project 

improvements .............................................................................................................................. C2-28 

a. The Project should ensure that all platforms are at train-door level so that ADA 

customers do not have to utilize a lift / wait for the conductor to find a ramp at the 

station. 

b. Not having “high-level” platforms in this Project adds travel time to trips. It looks like 

the Project will have at least four stations (if not more) that are “low-level” and that's 

going to add at least two minutes to every train in both directions. 

c. The objections to “high-level” platforms seem to be that VRE owns equipment designed 

for “low-level” platforms and that freight railroads don’t like “high-level” platforms, but 

there has to be a solution to those concerns from other places in the country. 

4. Are future parking demands being addressed / increased at stations as part of this Project? . 

 ................................................................................................................................................... C2-29

5. Station-specific concerns ............................................................................................................. C2-30 

a. Carmel Church Station has been supported by the last three administrations and has 

been included in the last two Virginia State Rail plans. It was studied in depth by DRPT 

and affirmed in the Amtrak Station Area Planning and Land Use Analysis study from 

August 2008. While the Project states that it does not preclude the development of new 

stations, the Project should include the station that the Caroline County community has 

been working on with the full support of the Commonwealth. 

b. In Fredericksburg, the Project should look into renovating the current historic station as 

a passenger station rather than building a new station. 

c. What is happening at the Ashland Station? The Project needs to be sensitive to the 

aesthetics of the historic building. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

GENERAL 

1. Is there no route which would not impact local citizens? ..................................................... C2-31 

2. The environmental impacts and/or monetary cost of the Project are not worth the projected 

time-savings of passenger rail. High speed rail is prohibitively expensive when compared to 

the time-savings for passengers using these trains. It is not fair to ask residents to “pay” for 

this when they will not be seeing any benefit. ........................................................................ C2-31 
 INDEX TO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS 

 C1-7 

TRAFFIC / TRANSPORTATION 

1. Concern about safety and/or accessibility of public at-grade roadway crossings as evaluated 

in the Draft EIS ............................................................................................................................. C2-32 

2. What is happening to the existing at-grade treatments in the corridor (public crossings)? 

 ........................................................................................................................................................ C2-33 

3. Concern over private driveway access and/or crossing treatment throughout the corridor .... 

 ........................................................................................................................................................ C2-33 

4. Ashland-specific traffic concerns .............................................................................................. C2-34 

a. In Ashland, the proposed alternatives would not increase safety of at-grade roadway 

crossings, especially at the main intersection in downtown Ashland (England 

Street/Thompson Street crossing). 

b. In Ashland, railway traffic currently affects traffic flow by blocking intersections up to 

15 —20 minutes. This is not covered in the Draft EIS. 

c. There has not been adequate attention to how disruptive the destruction/ construction 

through the town of Ashland would be. Shutting down Center Street for several years 

will create an inconvenience to all residents. 

5. Concern over access of specific crossings ................................................................................ C2-35 

a. In the Northern Virginia Area, there is no reference to problems at Railroad Avenue in 

Woodbridge. If a new 2-track bridge is to be built east of the existing bridge at Occoquan 

Creek, what will happen to access to houses on Railroad Avenue? The properties have 

no legal access to a public road except by using Railroad Avenue, which belongs to 

CSXT. There should be a frontage road study, with pedestrian passage. 

b. In Ashland, what is the plan for the Gwathmey Church Road crossing, which serves a 

landlocked community? As rail traffic increases, the safety of the crossing will become 

more of a problem. 

c. In Ashland along the western bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C-Ashcake in the 

Draft EIS), there are families who presently gain ingress and egress from Cross Road. 

With the rail corridor replacing Cross Road, what happens to property owners in this 

area? 

RIGHT-OF-WAY / DISPLACEMENTS / PROPERTY VALUE 

1. Concern about process for acquiring private property, including compensation, timing, need, 

and methods ................................................................................................................................. C2-36 

2. How are farms addressed in the property evaluations of the Draft EIS? Are farms considered 

businesses? ................................................................................................................................... C2-37 

3. It seems that people with property the railroad crosses would only be compensated for the 

actual amount of land used by the physical railroad, with no value given to a single property 

that is split into pieces by the Project, such as a farm with a barn on one side and a pasture on 

the other. ....................................................................................................................................... C2-37 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

C1-8 

4. Concern about property values ................................................................................................. C2-37 

a. Since the Project might not be completed until 15—20 years from now, this Project 

would encumber property owners land by basically tying their hands in the ability to 

utilize their property rights, and the value of their property would be devalued. 

b. In the Ashland Area, concern that the impact on property values of the proposed Project 

is immediate. Even just the discussion of shutting down Center Street for 2—3 years is 

hurting real estate prices now. 

5. Concern that impacts to homeowners that are not directly located on the tracks are not 

considered as part of the Project ............................................................................................... C2-38 

6. Concern that the Draft EIS did not address the economic impact in the Ashland Area ... C2-39 

a. In the Ashland Area, concern about negative economic impact of the construction of 

alternatives through town. The FRA decision will have immediate economic impacts, 

even if it is scheduled for 15—20 years in the future. 

b. In the Ashland Area, the western bypass option will significantly impact taxpaying 

property owners with lower property values for homes, farms, and land. This negative 

economic impact will not simply affect the homes and lands in the immediate area of the 

proposed tracks, but many more homes, farms, and lands in the vicinity of the entire 

western bypass. These additional taxpaying property owners have not been included in 

the fact-finding efforts of the rail reports. 

7. In the Richmond area, there was no discussion of any potential impacts to local industrial 

businesses that this Project would affect outside of the Main Street Station Area. ........... C2-39 

8. In the Ashland area, it is not clear from the Draft EIS documentation exactly how many houses 

are impacted by the bypass alignments? ................................................................................. C2-40 

LAND USE 

1. Lansdowne Road in Spotsylvania County is currently a two-lane facility. The Draft EIS 

mentions a grade separation where it crosses the tracks near the City of Fredericksburg. The 

County Comprehensive Plan recommends a future four-lane divided roadway for 

Lansdowne Road that should be considered as part of this Project..................................... C2-40 

2. In Ashland, concern how a bypass would adversely impact Hanover County growth plans 

and/or is not compatible with County land use plans. For properties along the bypass 

alignment, houses are zoned for residential, so how can a bypass be built? ...................... C2-40 

3. In Ashland, what is the opinion that VDOT has on this western bypass which is in conflict 

with their planned 4-lane north and western bypass of Ashland (starting at Cross Corner Road 

and ending at Staples Mills (Route 33))? That study was performed in the early 1990s. 

Numerous town meetings were held, and the route was chosen either on or very close to 

existing roadways. How does DRPT propose to close off Cross Corner Road with this West 

Ashland Bypass and still incorporate VDOT's planned bypass? Does DRPT or FRA have the 

authority to supersede existing plans by VDOT? ................................................................... C2-41 
 INDEX TO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS 

 C1-9 

COMMUNITY FACILITIES / TITLE VI / ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

1. Concern over Title VI and environmental justice (EJ) populations ...................................... C2-41 

a. Will the Project affect more environmental justice (EJ) communities than non-EJ 

communities? If so, are there viable alternative routes which would have less of an 

impact on an EJ community and why haven’t they been chosen? 

b. What specific actions have been taken to ensure that minority and/or low-income 

communities are not disproportionately affected by the construction and use of high 

speed rail? How will coordination with these communities be conducted? 

2. It is discrimination that the Project does not include roll on / roll off level platforms at all 

stations. ......................................................................................................................................... C2-42 

3. Is Long Bridge Park affected by the Project? ........................................................................... C2-42 

4. Concern that the third rail options through Ashland do not appropriately consider impacts to 

Randolph-Macon College ........................................................................................................... C2-43 

5. Concern about specific community facilities located along the bypass alignments in Ashland

 ........................................................................................................................................................ C2-43 

a. To Independence Christian Church from the Western Bypass alternatives in the Ashland 

Area (Build Alternative 5C and 5C-Ashcake). 

b. To Kiddie Kingdom (a non-profit child care center) from the Western Bypass alternatives 

in the Ashland Area (Build Alternative 5C and 5C-Ashcake). 

6. What is impact to Leesylvania State Park? .............................................................................. C2-43 

7. No consideration was made for any individuals with disabilities, who would be impacted by 

the sound and vibrations from a rail being close to houses along the Ashland Western Bypass 

alignment. ..................................................................................................................................... C2-43 

FARMLAND 

1. The proposed Project would impact acres of land that are currently farmed. Not only does 

this mean that farmers would be unable to farm the land, but it could be impossible to leave 

cattle in pastures split by a train track. Does the Project account for these ramifications? ........ 

 .............................................................................................................................................................. C2-44 

2. The Project should uphold the Farmland Protection Act and the Local Agriculture Districts 

Act quoted in the Draft EIS which were put in place to minimize the conversion of the 

Commonwealth’s farmland to nonagricultural uses. ............................................................. C2-44 

3. The dairy industry is in peril all on its own. Over the last 15 years dairies in Hanover have 

diminished and warrant protection. ......................................................................................... C2-45 

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 

1. Concern regarding consideration/accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities .. C2-45 

a. It is an oversight that the Project does not include a parallel greenway. The Project 

corridor should include a multiuse path that connects to trailways that are in place or 

planned along the corridor, such as the East Coast Greenway. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

C1-10 

b. The Draft EIS did not focus enough on bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Bicycle and 

pedestrian facilities should be considered and accommodated as part of at-grade and/or 

grade separated crossings. 

c. Walking over the tracks is an impediment and impossible for wheelchairs and mobility 

aids. How does the Project improve these problems? 

2. Will bicycles be allowed / accommodated for on all the new trains? If not, why? .......... C2-46 

3. Ashland is home to the intersection of Bicycle Routes 1 and 76. The Draft EIS did not consider 

these trails that would be impacted by all through-town build alternatives. ..................... C2-47 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

1. Concern regarding the Main Street Station options in Richmond and their impact on the 

Shockoe Bottom Area and the cultural resources related to slave trade in the area, including 

the footprint of the “Burial Ground for Negros”, Lumpkins Jail/Devil’s Half Acre, and/or the 

proposed Memorial Park. Concern that impacts to these resources, either individually or as a 

whole, were not fully considered within the Draft EIS. ......................................................... C2-47 

2. Concern regarding the third-rail options through Ashland and their impact on the historic 

districts / properties, including the potential Berkleytown Historic District. The Section 106 

study revealed buildings that are potentially eligible for individual listing. Aren’t historic 

districts and buildings elevated to individual listings supposed to be protected? ............ C2-50 

3. In the Ashland Area, how did cultural resources studies along the bypass alignment differ 

from those along the main corridor through Ashland? Have any studies been conducted on 

any potential structural changes that may occur to these properties due to additional freight 

and passenger rail trains? ........................................................................................................... C2-51 

4. Concern regarding the Rosemont Historic District in Alexandria ....................................... C2-51 

5. In Ashland, residents living along the tracks receive tax credits from the state to maintain and 

preserve historic homes. How will this be impacted by the Project? ................................... C2-51 

6. In Ashland, the Commonwealth has invested in the town itself to preserve its historic 

character. Any three-track option through town would be at odds with those state-sponsored 

efforts—how does the document account for this investment? ............................................ C2-52 

7. The Draft EIS did not give adequate consideration to the impact on the cultural, archeological, 

and historic site of Ferry Farm, George Washington's boyhood home. Currently Stafford 

County is re-configuring the entrance road to this cultural site to align with the Ferry Road 

and Route 3 (Kings Highway) intersection, which would be directly across from the rail 

crossing of Ferry Road on the Dahlgren spur (relevant to the 3C option). ......................... C2-52 

NATURAL AND WATER RESOURCES 

1. How will the Project reduce and/or mitigate the effects on the groundwater and private wells 

throughout the construction and long-term operation of the railways? Will the Project be 

assessed for its potential to contaminate water supplies under the Safe Water Drinking Act 

amendments? How will these specific potential sources of pollution be monitored and 

addressed so that contamination is minimized to the lowest levels possible? Are there 

measures in place for how to address a contamination episode if one occurs due to the Project? 
 INDEX TO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS 

 C1-11 

A testing and alert mechanism for contaminated water should be implemented in order to 

ensure groundwater stays clean and safe for use. .................................................................. C2-53 

2. How will the Project protect flood zones / wetlands or get approval from DEQ to build in 

these areas? More must be done to absorb the cost of losing wetland ecosystems. ......... C2-53 

3. The effects of sea level rise are not considered by the Draft EIS. Currently, there are stretches 

along the corridor where the water seems to be lapping at the tracks already. That's going to 

be a growing problem and needs to be addressed. ................................................................ C2-54 

4. Concern over “missed” natural and/or water resources in the Ashland Area along the 

Western Bypass alternatives (Draft EIS Build Alternatives 5C and 5C-Ashcake) .............. C2-55 

a. In the Ashland Area, the proposed bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C-Ashcake in the 

Draft EIS) would kill a Giant Sequoia on the land at 12311 Elmont Road. 

b. In the Ashland Area, a property owner along the Western Bypass (Draft EIS Build 

Alternative 5C and 5C-Ashcake) found a male (red eyed) eastern box turtle. Its roaming 

radius is approximately 1 mile. 

c. In the Ashland Area, property along the Western Bypass (Draft EIS Build Alternative 5C 

and 5C-Ashcake) has wetlands and flood zone areas. If property owners cannot build in 

this area, how is it legal to build a train track? The number of trees that will have to be 

cut and soil that will have to be disturbed will be devastating. The DEQ of VA website 

seems very clear that it can't happen. These areas are also home to native wildlife such 

as deer fox owls and eagles, which could become landlocked if the Project is built. 

5. As our region and state see more traffic, investment in Long Bridge across the Potomac is a 

critical component to handle growth in Amtrak and VRE and freight. All that construction 

must meet high standards for sediment and erosion control and long-term stormwater 

management. ................................................................................................................................ C2-56 

6. What is the plan for design of bridge openings over navigable waterways, including Neabsco 

Creek? ............................................................................................................................................ C2-56 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

1. Concern about what noise and /or vibration studies have been conducted as part of the 

Project ............................................................................................................................................ C2-57 

a. How will noise and vibration of high speed rail compare to current Amtrak, CSXT, and 

commuter trains? 

b. Noise and vibration levels were not studied for all traffic that would travel on new line 

such as freight and other passenger trains. 

c. The effects of increased weight from heavier and longer trains and the increases in the 

future were not considered, nor is the closer distance about 15 feet considered. 

d. What about impacts due to existing trains or when existing trains pass by each other? 

This Project will increase the ability of other trains to move more quickly. What would 

the vibration and noise impacts be of increased speeds of these other trains? 

e. The noise impact assessment failed to assess and compare current noise exposure versus 

projected future in terms of length of time of exposure and any increases in decibels. 

f. Concern over impact to underground pipelines within the railroad easement, especially since 

some of these may be very old and not withstand increased vibrations from the Project. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

C1-12 

2. Concern about noise and vibration mitigation........................................................................ C2-59 

a. What noise and vibration mitigations are occurring? Residences already have noise 

impacts and/or shaking of homes when the trains go past, which will get worse with the 

addition of new rails. Can an impact study and/or mitigation (natural and/or 

manmade, i.e., noise barriers) be completed? Are you going to pay for damage that the 

Project does to homes shaking? 

b. Concern that Draft EIS does not detail mitigation. When will residents know whether 

the severely impacted residential areas will be looked at for noise barriers? Will 

mitigation include sound walls and / or requests for sound walls? 

3. Concern about noise and vibration during construction, which doesn’t seem to be evaluated 

in the Draft EIS ............................................................................................................................. C2-60 

4. The noise and vibrational impact section of the Draft EIS falls far short of describing, if not 

actively disguises, the increased vibrational and noise impact that another set of tracks and the 

resulting increased high speed train and freight traffic will have on the livability of the 

surrounding neighborhoods. The report fails to note that some homes are all built on marine 

clay. This is in contrast to what the report says, which states that the soil on which the tracks 

are built minimally conducts vibration or noise. The Project should mandate slow moving trains 

and lighter trains and enforce these regulations. ........................................................................ C2-60 

5. If adequate engineering studies had been done, the conclusion would be that many of the 

historic homes along the corridor would not be able to withstand the construction / drilling 

impact that will occur because of the Project. ......................................................................... C2-61 

6. Why has no one has done a noise and vibration study on any of the houses on Mount Vernon 

Avenue near King Street Metro? Due to the proximity of these houses to the tracks, such a 

study should have been a priority for this EIS to be taken seriously. .................................. C2-61 

7. Concern about train horn use .................................................................................................... C2-61 

a. There are existing quiet zones in the corridor to prevent the trains from blowing horns. 

The Project should establish new quiet zones in other areas throughout the corridor? 

b. Will the Project significantly decrease frequency and decibels of train horns? 

c. The process for evaluating locomotive air horn noise in Crystal City and Alexandria is 

flawed. 110 decibels is in the Code of Federal Regulations, but that level of air horn 

noise is an issue. 

AIR QUALITY 

1. The Draft EIS doesn't seem to reflect the reduction in highway emissions that could occur if 

more people chose to travel by rail. .......................................................................................... C2-62 

2. Increased train traffic from the Project will cause an environmental burden on the people 

living next to the tracks because of the additional diesel fumes and related emissions which 

impact the air quality, which was not addressed in the Draft EIS. ...................................... C2-62 

3. There is no consideration given to air quality during construction in the Draft EIS. There will 

be fumes and noises coming from construction that it will be unhealthy to residents and their 

posterity. ....................................................................................................................................... C2-63 
 INDEX TO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS 

 C1-13 

VISUAL/ AESTHETIC 

1. How are visual impacts evaluated, both throughout the corridor and within historic 

downtown Ashland streetscape specifically? .......................................................................... C2-63 

2. Page 3-54 of the Draft EIS lays out the definition of Visual Resources: “Viewers in visually 

sensitive resource areas are typically involved in outdoor activities where their sensitivity to 

the surrounding visual environment may be heightened.” However, later on page 3-66 of the 

Draft EIS, it states in regard to VAU 5-2 or the western bypass of Ashland that “no sensitive 

visual resources are identified within this unit.” This is incorrect, as bicyclists, walkers, and 

joggers frequent Yowell Road and the private residences there. This area of private residences 

provides a visual resource to viewers traveling in this VAU and should be taken into 

consideration in the final copy of the EIS given its regular recreational use. ..................... C2-64 

3. The Project will have a negative visual and noise impact on homes and Blue Park in 

Alexandria if the existing “greenbelt” of mature trees and shrubs along the railroad tracks are 

cut down. The Draft EIS maps show that some of this greenbelt is within the Project’s area of 

temporary and permanent impact. ........................................................................................... C2-64 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

1. The DC2RVA will provide CSXT an upgraded rail system with the potential of moving more 

freight and toxic materials though the Project corridor. ........................................................ C2-65 

a. Do more trains mean more chances that a hazardous spill will happen? 

b. In the Bypass alignments, the Project will be introducing the potential for hazardous 

materials in previously pristine places. How is that accounted for? 

INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

1. Concern about secondary/cumulative impacts in and around Fredericksburg ................ C2-65 

2. In the Richmond Area, the Draft EIS does not take into account the indirect/cumulative effects 

of the Project, including induced development. ..................................................................... C2-66 

SAFETY 

1. Does adding a third rail increase the risk of train derailments? ........................................... C2-66 

2. Within Ashland, a third track would significantly endanger Randolph-Macon College’s 

students, faculty and staff, and tens of thousands of annual visitors. ................................. C2-66 

3. Within Ashland, parked cars on Center Street/Railroad Avenue block visibility whether 

driving, walking, or biking. The difficult combination of street traffic, pedestrians, and trains 

from multiple directions is unsafe—how will the Project change these unsafe conditions? ...... 

 ........................................................................................................................................................ C2-67 

OTHER 

1. In Ashland, the analysis of the through town alternatives does not take into account the 100-

year old trees and their history that would be destroyed. They date back to the Civil War. ........ 

 .............................................................................................................................................................. C2-67 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

C1-14 

2. What are the impacts to east coast commerce and international trade, if the DC2RVA corridor 

were incapacitated? There should be a north-south rail infrastructure back-up plan in a 

geographically separate location in case something occurred along the DC2RVA corridor, such 

as a natural or man-made emergency. .......................................................................................... C2-67 

FUNDING, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPLEMENTATION 

1. Questions regarding Project funding, funding sources and timing, and/or funding for 

construction. ................................................................................................................................. C2-68 

a. Who is paying for this Project? 

b. DRPT claims that this Project will be paid for by "federal state and local sources” but have 

failed to advise the public that this “source” is our tax dollars. 

2. How much will the new service fare cost? The cost of travel, not the number of trains, is the 

biggest obstacle to regularly using Amtrak. Will there be fare reductions compared to existing 

pricing? .......................................................................................................................................... C2-68 

3. Construction-related questions and/or issues ........................................................................ C2-69 

a. How long would the Project take to construct?

b. What does access to private property during construction look like?

c. How will emergency access to properties occur during construction?

d. What does construction phasing look like? Could the third rail alternatives be phased 

within Ashland that Center Street is not closed for the duration of the construction? 

e. There needs to be a robust process to ensure that new construction minimizes the 

impacts on adjacent neighborhoods and that there is a robust and transparent process 

for residents to monitor decisions and to be able to influence plans and actions.

4. After the Final EIS and ROD, what other tasks / deliverables are part of this Project? What is 

the “conceptual design” of this EIS versus “final design,” and when would that occur? C2-70